Changes

2-27: jatasya hi dhruvo mrityur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad aparihArye rthe na  tvam socitum arhasi "One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament." Krishna says that whatever is originating, it's destruction is certain and whatever is perishable, it will inevitably originate. Arjuna now has a doubt. If he wins the war and whatever is born is going to perish, it means the win will also be temporary. So, why even battle?? Similarly, shouldn't a person who has recuperated from disease is happy, should he be, because his recuperation is ultimately temporary? Krishna responds saying that, this efforts are required for clearing of the trouble for that period, which is natural and there is no confusion or wrong about it. Similarly, it's Arjuna's responsibility to fight his way from the current situation, rather than running away. Now another doubt comes up - Is something coming up from nothing or is it coming up from something ; This two types of arguments are called - Sat-kaarya Vaadham and Asat-kaarya Vaadham. e.g. To take an analogy, it's the difference between Discovery and Invention. Discovery is something which is already there and been identified for use (eg> country, columbus discovering America). Invention is creating something which was not there previously (eg> Telephone). But, really speaking, the components of telephone was always there and it's only been arranged in a new way. e.g Wool.Thread strung together becomes a Cloth. Similarly, something can come out of something and nothing (this is Satkaarya Vaadham) and when it perishes, it doesn't go away. but is transformed. eg. when a pot is broken, even though the Pot is destroyed, it creates the clay (broken into clay pieces). Similarly, when a body perishes, it takes a different form. It is evident that death of the physical body is inevitable to whatever is born and that there is no way to escape from this physical termination of the body. Similarly rebirth is unavoidable once one's physical body has died. How can something which has been lost become again? It is conceivable that something which has already been to become again; but it is inconceivable for that which has never been to become. Therefore there is nothing that can come that has not been. What is known as birth and death is but just different modifications of an ever existing condition. Yarn and other materials exist but when they are woven into a fabric that is a particular arrangement of the yarn itself, it receives the name cloth in its modified state. Even the asat-karya-vadis who follow the fallacious hypothesis that existence comes from non-existence should admit the ever existing state, for what we know as cloth to them is a new creation but is factually the same old yarn only in a new form which has been created. It is not sagacious or well thought out to assume that a new substance has come into being simply because of a modified condition. Thus coming into existence and disappearing from existence are modified states of an ever existing reality. One of the conditions of this modified state is its appearance called birth and another condition being its diametric opposite is known as death which by disappearing this ever existing reality passes into. For a substance which is intrinsically metamorphic the process of modification is essential. As in the case of a clod of earth, transformed into clay, transformed into a pot, transformed into dust and transformed back to earth again. The manifestation of a subsequent condition is but a modification of a previous condition and that same subsequent condition becomes a prior condition of another subsequent condition. Reasoning in this way it can be understood that it is natural that successive modifications take place in regards to creation and destruction of physical bodies which cannot be avoided and there is no reason to lament due to this. If there is some slight grief which may be apparent by the passing from a prior modified state to a subsequent modified state even this grief need not arise in the case of living entities such as human beings because... and the next verse 28 clarifies why.

2-27: jatasya hi dhruvo mrityur dhruvam janma mrtasya ca tasmad aparihArye rthe na  tvam socitum arhasi "One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament." Krishna says that whatever is originating, it's destruction is certain and whatever is perishable, it will inevitably originate. Arjuna now has a doubt. If he wins the war and whatever is born is going to perish, it means the win will also be temporary. So, why even battle?? Similarly, shouldn't a person who has recuperated from disease is happy, should he be, because his recuperation is ultimately temporary? Krishna responds saying that, this efforts are required for clearing of the trouble for that period, which is natural and there is no confusion or wrong about it. Similarly, it's Arjuna's responsibility to fight his way from the current situation, rather than running away. Now another doubt comes up - Is something coming up from nothing or is it coming up from something ; This two types of arguments are called - Sat-kaarya Vaadham and Asat-kaarya Vaadham. e.g. To take an analogy, it's the difference between Discovery and Invention. Discovery is something which is already there and been identified for use (eg> country, columbus discovering America). Invention is creating something which was not there previously (eg> Telephone). But, really speaking, the components of telephone was always there and it's only been arranged in a new way. e.g Wool.Thread strung together becomes a Cloth. Similarly, something can come out of something and nothing (this is Satkaarya Vaadham) and when it perishes, it doesn't go away. but is transformed. eg. when a pot is broken, even though the Pot is destroyed, it creates the clay (broken into clay pieces). Similarly, when a body perishes, it takes a different form. It is evident that death of the physical body is inevitable to whatever is born and that there is no way to escape from this physical termination of the body. Similarly rebirth is unavoidable once one's physical body has died. How can something which has been lost become again? It is conceivable that something which has already been to become again; but it is inconceivable for that which has never been to become. Therefore there is nothing that can come that has not been. What is known as birth and death is but just different modifications of an ever existing condition. Yarn and other materials exist but when they are woven into a fabric that is a particular arrangement of the yarn itself, it receives the name cloth in its modified state. Even the asat-karya-vadis who follow the fallacious hypothesis that existence comes from non-existence should admit the ever existing state, for what we know as cloth to them is a new creation but is factually the same old yarn only in a new form which has been created. It is not sagacious or well thought out to assume that a new substance has come into being simply because of a modified condition. Thus coming into existence and disappearing from existence are modified states of an ever existing reality. One of the conditions of this modified state is its appearance called birth and another condition being its diametric opposite is known as death which by disappearing this ever existing reality passes into. For a substance which is intrinsically metamorphic the process of modification is essential. As in the case of a clod of earth, transformed into clay, transformed into a pot, transformed into dust and transformed back to earth again. The manifestation of a subsequent condition is but a modification of a previous condition and that same subsequent condition becomes a prior condition of another subsequent condition. Reasoning in this way it can be understood that it is natural that successive modifications take place in regards to creation and destruction of physical bodies which cannot be avoided and there is no reason to lament due to this. If there is some slight grief which may be apparent by the passing from a prior modified state to a subsequent modified state even this grief need not arise in the case of living entities such as human beings because... and the next verse 28 clarifies why.

2-28:

2-28: avyaktadi-ni bhutani ! vyakta-madhyani bharata! avyakta-nidhanAny eva! tatra ka paridevana "The [five elements made] body is not capable of revealing the past [but] middle [present] revealed. Future not revealed, Oh! Bharatha, where is then need for grief?" All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation? Note, slokas 26,27,28 are all based on the assumption that body and soul are the same and Krishna presenting that even assuming this false assumption is true, even then one should not get disturbed by the death or destruction of this body. Take for eg: Pot, clay, mud are three different forms of the same thing and one thing transforms into another in it's cycle of formation and destruction. Atleast for Pot, we know what form it will take (mud, clay etc), when it gets broken. But, for human, we wouldn't know for sure what it's future state be, after death. After death, it may take a better form. Arjuna asks, whether it's possible to know what the past or future states would be? Krishna responds that, we won't know our past or future, but only our present. This body which is made up of PanchaBhootams(Bhootani) is "Avyaaktaani" (unknown) in the past; Our current state(madhya) is known (Vyaktaani); Our future i.e after death (Nidhana) is unknown(Avyaktaani). So, there is no point in grieving about the future stage. Do remember that this sloka is based on the assumption that body and soul are same and Krishna is presenting it from this point of view and letting Arjuna know, even with this assumption, there is no point in grieving(paridevana) about future or past. Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and remains as atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in course of time things are manifested and unmanifested--that is the difference. Then what cause is there for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or unmanifestation? Somehow or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the beginning and at the end, all elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this does not make any real material difference. And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gita (antavanta ime dehah) that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (nityasyoktah saririnah) but that soul is eternal, then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress? Why then is it seen that even men possessing intelligence lament in this world? It is simply due to ignorance about the true nature of the eternal soul. Having this theme in mind the abstruseness of the eternal soul is being given, in the next slokam (2.29).

avyaktadi-ni bhutani ! vyakta-madhyani bharata!

 

avyakta-nidhanAny eva! tatra ka paridevana

2-29: ascarya-vat pasyati kascid-enam ascarya-vad vadati tathaiva cAnyah ascarya-vac cainam anyah-srnoti srutvapy-enam veda na-caiva kascit In the previous three slokas, Krishna expatiated about not being concerned about Body and how it is temporary. Arjuna is now baffled that he is unable to comprehend this reality and is still scared. All of us are in the same boat, including the great Jnaanis, even though the jnaanis are in a higher plane of understanding. The power of this bodily conception is very difficult to overcome. Krishna responds to this fear of Arjuna: This amazing (Aasharyavati ) nature of soul is known/seen (Pashchati) by only one among crores and only one among crores talks(Vadati) about it and then only one among crores hears (Shrunoti) about it and then only one among crores will really understand(veda) and realise the soul exists and that body is temporary. This shows that it's only the rare among the beings that truly realises the Atma and not everybody can get away from this bodily allure and conception. Sri Krishna says that one in a crore [ten million] see atman, one in a crore only hear about atman and one in a crore only talk about him. But it is much more rare to find a person who understands atman. This may cause a doubt in us that there is no one knowing about atman. So there is nothing like atman. Because, if anything exists, then at least some persons should know about it. We talk of Mount Everest. Very few persons would have seen it. From them we understand it is there. We believe an object only if someone who had seen the object tells us. So, Arjuna doubts whether there is an atman, as nobody has seen it. Sri Krishna replies that He did not say there was no one who had seen the atman, but it is very, very rare to find a person who had seen atman. Such a person is a noble one, who can be followed. This second chapter unlike the first one is quite difficult to follow, for everyone learning Gita. Because the soul is abstract and it has no form to recognize nor are there any similar substance in the world to identify. But constant studies and thinking can slowly make us to understand. We are able to conceive God, as many forms are available. But for atman there are no icons. A beginning is now made and by continuous efforts we can refine our knowledge about atman. We shouldn't get distressed by this! How to overcome this rarity?? Our lives are totally consumed by material being. It needs dedication to reflect about our selves (Atma), focus our efforts on it and be dedicated. For eg: if a boy is given to solve a PHD maths problem, he cannot solve it. He needs to complete schooling, Graduate, masters, PHD, before he can solve it. But, at the same time, if he reached adult age, it doesn't mean that he can solve it, unless he is in the Maths field. So, this requires not only "age" & experience, but to study in that field. Similarly, in our lives, we need continued focus in the reflection of the truth about atma to understand this truth. Simply, by living in material life and diving once in a while into spiritual pursuit isn't going to help. When we put effort, the Lord too will reach his hand to guide us. Infact, knowing about Atma is difficult, because it's not seen, heard etc. Atleast dieties in temples, we can see and relish and celebrate fesivals etc, whereas for our atma this is not possible. So, this is difficult. Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of sins and has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself. Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term 'ca' (and) implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.

"The [five elements made] body is not capable of revealing the past [but] middle

 

[present] revealed. Future not revealed, Oh! Bharatha, where is then need for

2-30: dehi nityam avadhyo yam dehe  sarvasya bharata tasmat sarvani bhutani na tvam socitum arhasi dehi-> Atma (it resides in body); Nityam->Eternal ; "Na Tvam sochitu arhasi".. THis is a common refrain of Krishna in many slokas, which implies that "you do not grieve"! Here Krishna says that Self(Jeevatma) exists in everyone's body and even when all this bodies perish, the atma(s) in them do not perish. Note that, Krishna says there is Jeevatma in everyone's body and it's not that ONE atma pervades all bodies! This is in response to Arjuna's doubt: 'I am understanding about the perishability of body as per krishan's slokas below. Now, everybody in this world seems different. One person varies from another in appearance, personality, esteem, joys and sorrows etc. So, is there a difference in the Jeevatmas nature too among people? i.e is one jeevatma's nature different from another?? Is one jeevatma eternal and the other not? ". In response, Krishna tells this sloka that the atmas residing in all bodies are eternal and do not perish, when the body perishes. Now, another question arises, when the bodies are different (color, sex, creed, appearance etc), how come the atma is same?? To remove this doubt only Sri Krishna tells that the atman or dehi in every body or deham is eternal. We are witnessing changes on the body but the soul remains the same. To understand this we should examine closely our daily habits and experiences. We see variety of persons. Some are fair, some black, some tall, some short, some females, some males, some animals, etc. but all these differences do not change our habits. One may be a millionaire and another a poor. But both see with their eyes only and hear with their ears. There is no difference in these functions. Educated or illiterate, one has to eat with his mouth only. So, God has not permitted any difference in certain basic functions. We eat varieties of food and vegetables. They remain so till what we eat reaches the throat. After this the body assimilates them as protein, vitamin or carbohydrates. This is scientific fact. We do not eat as such fat or proteins. So, all differences are in the external appearance only, such as brinjal [butter fruit] or lady s finger [okra]. The body, however, takes only the essence. So, only those, which appear different, are all destroyed and atman, which is identical in every creature, is eternal. So Arjuna need not to worry that he may be destroying a destroyable atman. So, in this sloka Krishna says, that Arjuna need not show grief. (Note that as per bodily conception of relations, we do have to show compassion, affection etc, but if we limit to just bodily ideas, then we end up being selfish about self, family etc, but if we look at if from jeevatma conception, our compassion will not be limited just to few, but to everybody! and it will also ensure we understand the sense of duty without getting over emotional and binding). If we distinguish atman from body, then we can be of real help to not merely our relatives but to everyone suffering. Relatives are body related. Only a perspective that all atmans are same can make us render help to all. That is why in any calamity, there are some persons who concentrate on the things to do and do not go emotional. Such duty minded persons are of real help. Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged, but at the time of war it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it. That need must be justified in terms of the sanction of the Lord, and not capriciously.

grief?"

All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim

state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for

lamentation?

Note, slokas 26,27,28 are all based on the assumption that body and soul are the

same and Krishna presenting that even assuming this false assumption is true,

even

then one should not get disturbed by the death or destruction of this body. Take

for eg: Pot, clay, mud are three different forms of the same thing and one thing

transforms

into another in it's cycle of formation and destruction. Atleast for Pot, we

know what form it will take (mud, clay etc), when it gets broken.

But, for human, we wouldn't know for sure what it's future state be, after death.

After death, it may take a better form. Arjuna asks,

whether it's possible to know what the past or future states would be? Krishna

responds that, we won't know our past or future, but

only our present. This body which is made up of PanchaBhootams(Bhootani) is

"Avyaaktaani" (unknown) in the past; Our current state(madhya) is

known (Vyaktaani); Our future i.e after death (Nidhana) is unknown(Avyaktaani).

So, there is no point in grieving about the future stage.

Do remember that this sloka is based on the assumption that body and soul are same

and Krishna is presenting it from this point of view

and letting Arjuna know, even with this assumption, there is no point in

grieving(paridevana) about future or past.

Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the

existence of soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there

is no cause for lamentation in

either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by

followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the

atheistic theory, there is still no

cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material

elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of

unmanifestation comes

manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated;

from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the

earth, many varieties

of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from

the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and

remains as

atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in

course of time things are manifested and unmanifested--that is the difference.

Then what cause is there

for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or unmanifestation? Somehow

or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the

beginning and at the end, all

elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this

does not make any real material difference.

And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gita (antavanta

ime dehah) that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time

(nityasyoktah saririnah) but

that soul is eternal, then we must remember always that the body is like a dress;

therefore why lament the changing of a dress?

Why then is it seen that even men possessing intelligence lament in this world? It

is simply due to ignorance about the true nature of the eternal soul. Having this

theme in mind the abstruseness of the eternal soul is being given, in the next

slokam (2.29).

2-29:

ascarya-vat pasyati kascid-enam ascarya-vad vadati tathaiva cAnyah

ascarya-vac cainam anyah-srnoti srutvapy-enam veda na-caiva kascit

In the previous three slokas, Krishna expatiated about not being concerned about

Body and how it is temporary. Arjuna is now

baffled that he is unable to comprehend this reality and is still scared. All of

us are in the same boat, including the great Jnaanis, even

though the jnaanis are in a higher plane of understanding. The power of this

bodily conception is very difficult to overcome.

Krishna responds to this fear of Arjuna: This amazing (Aasharyavati ) nature of

soul is known/seen (Pashchati) by only one among crores

and only one among crores talks(Vadati) about it and then only one among crores

hears (Shrunoti) about it and then only one among

crores will really understand(veda) and realise the soul exists and that body is

temporary. This shows that it's only the rare among

the beings that truly realises the Atma and not everybody can get away from this

bodily allure and conception.

Sri Krishna says that one in a crore [ten million] see atman, one in a crore only

hear about atman and one in a crore only talk about him. But it is much more rare

to find a person who understands atman. This may cause a doubt in us that there is

no one knowing about atman. So there is nothing like atman. Because, if anything

exists, then at least some persons should know about it. We talk of Mount Everest.

Very few persons would have seen it. From them we understand it is there. We

believe an object only if someone who had seen the object tells us. So, Arjuna

doubts whether there is an atman, as nobody has seen it. Sri Krishna replies that

He did not say there was no one who had seen the atman, but it is very, very rare

to find a person who had seen atman. Such a person is a noble one, who can be

followed. This second chapter unlike the first one is quite difficult to follow,

for everyone learning Gita. Because the soul is abstract and it has no form to

recognize nor are there any similar substance in the world to identify. But

constant studies and thinking can slowly make us to understand. We are able to

conceive God, as many forms are available. But for atman there are no icons. A

beginning is now made and by continuous efforts we can refine our knowledge about

atman.

We shouldn't get distressed by this! How to overcome this rarity?? Our lives are

totally consumed by material being. It needs

dedication to reflect about our selves (Atma), focus our efforts on it and be

dedicated. For eg: if a boy is given to solve a PHD maths

problem, he cannot solve it. He needs to complete schooling, Graduate, masters,

PHD, before he can solve it. But, at the same time,

if he reached adult age, it doesn't mean that he can solve it, unless he is in the

Maths field. So, this requires not only "age" & experience,

but to study in that field. Similarly, in our lives, we need continued focus in

the reflection of the truth about atma to understand this truth.

Simply, by living in material life and diving once in a while into spiritual

pursuit isn't going to help. When we put effort, the Lord too will

reach his hand to guide us. Infact, knowing about Atma is difficult, because

it's not seen, heard etc. Atleast dieties in temples, we

can see and relish and celebrate fesivals etc, whereas for our atma this is not

possible. So, this is difficult.

Among innumerable beings, someone, who by great austerity has got rid of sins and

has increased his merits, realises this self possessing the above mentioned

nature, which is wonderful and distinct in kind from all things other than Itself.

Such a one speaks of It to another. Thus, someone hears of It. And even after

hearing of It, no one knows It exactly that It really exists. The term 'ca' (and)

implies that even amongst the seers, the speakers and hearers, one with authentic

percepetion, authentic speech and authentic hearing, is a rarity.

2-31:

2-31:

sva-dharmam api ca-aveksya na vikam-pitum arhasi

sva-dharmam api ca-aveksya na vikam-pitum arhasi